That is definitely a jack-of-all trade lens (but master of none). I did try it at one indoor event, and had to really slow down the shutter speed, so it was only usable for me for stationary shots. IQ was good, but not as sharp as either the 70-200 or 135, but definitely usable. The extra reach may prove useful to some, but if changing lenses as needed is not an issue, I'd go for the extra stops of light with the 135, and stay with constant f4 zoom. Again, photography is about choices / compromises and planning ahead. No one (affordable) lens exists to cover every situation. I guess that is why my camera bags have become so full.

I regularly use both the 135 and the 70-200 f2.8 II and as mentioned it depends on what / where you want to shoot. I don't use the f4 zoom ( see below).The 135 is fantastic. especially but not limited to when that extra stop is needed, and it is a bit less obtrusive. Indoor sports is my primary use, so originally I bought the 2.8 II 70-200 with a 7d (incorrectly assuming I needed the extra reach, but I found the lighting a bigger challenge.) To handle that, I now have the 1d IV, and I still find that I lean on the faster 135 much more. For my shoots (low light), I not only need the increased ISO sensitivity of the 1 series (c/w the 7d) but I find it more worthwhile to trade off a little reach / zoom flexibility for that extra stop. That may not be as important to you.If/when I go full frame, I anticipate facing the dilemma of even less crop, but with added / better low light sensitivity so I may be able to go back to using the 70-200 2.8 again.The versatility / quality of the faster 2.8 zoom made the f4 not an option for my work, but think carefully which is more important for you. You might re-consider both the 70-200 f4 AND the 135 b/c as I see it you kind of get the best of both worlds = albeit the difference in quality/speed between the f4 and 2.8 II for me was the deal breaker.Not an easy choice, but looking at the lens gallery will only make it harder to decide b/c it won't be 'obvious' which has better image quality. YOU have to think what lighting conditions you will want to shoot, and then the decision becomes a LITTLE easier. Good luck !!!!

I've used it on both and feel the images were similarly handled, though I was at max focal length on the 70--200. I will do a comparison specifically at 135 this weekend, but I am pleased with the results at 200 + 1.4 and don't really have a need to do 135 + 1.4, except to have 135*1.4 at f2.8 instead of 135*1.4 af f4 (using the 70-200).

EyeFi SD cards can synch instantly to web sites automatically if WiFi will be available ??I use it, albeit slow with large RAW or video files but doable if the hotel has access and you have enough batteries for the camera.

If willing to consider an over-the shoulder and a separate laptop sleeve, (as opposed to traditional backback), I was amazed at how much gear the ThinkTank 30 Retrospective can hold. While it sounds nice to have an integrated space for the laptop, in my searches, I found that having accessibility AND adequate packing makes the bags either too big or too flimsy, so I keep them separate. I'm sure others have different experiences/preferences, and most own (or have owned) MANY bags before finding the right one 'for now'.

I'd go with the 7D now, who knows when the next version is coming? If you wait for the 5D upgrade, all your money will be used on the newer body. While approaching 3 yrs out, the 7D body for ~1K is still a very nice camera, and this leaves you options ($$) for lenses. Once you understand /demonstrate to your employer what type of images you need and are capable of, then maybe they will pay for the next body